Why The Fight Between Rick Perry And Rand Paul Actually Matters

[DonViejo]

ED KILGORE – JULY 16, 2014, 6:00 AM EDT
The sharp exchange last weekend between Rick Perry and Rand Paul over Iraq — and more broadly, its relationship to the “Reagan legacy” in foreign policy — may have seemed like mid-summer entertainment to many observers, or perhaps just a food fight between two men thinking about running against each other for president in 2016. But from a broader perspective, we may be witnessing the first really serious division in the Republican Party over international affairs since the 1950s.

Republican unity on foreign policy and national security matters during the long period since “isolationists” and “internationalists” battled for party supremacy in the age of Taft and Dewey has been remarkable, particularly when compared to the frequent struggles among Democrats. The Donkey Party, after all, experienced major ruptures over Vietnam in the 1960s and early 1970s, and over Iraq in the early aughts, and less traumatic but significant bouts of dissension over the Nicaraguan contras and nuclear policy in the 1980s, and over the First Gulf War in 1991. Yes, there was scattered GOP opposition to LBJ’s and Nixon’s Vietnam policies and a brief conservative reaction against Nixon’s and Ford’s detente strategy with the Soviet Union. And throughout the period of consensus, there were small bands of paleoconservative and libertarian dissenters against Cold War and post-Cold War GOP orthodoxy. But unless you think Pat Buchanan’s paleoconservative foreign policy views were a significant spur to his occasionally impressive 1992 and 1996 primary challenges (I don’t), none of this dissent rose to the level of a real challenge to party leadership, and generally lay outside the mainstream of conservative opinion.

The current discussion of Iraq among Republicans should not obscure the fact that party elected officials dutifully lined up behind the Bush-Cheney drive for a “war of choice.” Ninety-seven percent of House Republicans and 98 percent of Senate Republicans voted for the resolution to authorize the invasion. Republican backing for the later “surge” was nearly that unanimous, despite rapidly eroding public support for the war. Indeed, John McCain’s identification with the “surge” was crucial in making him acceptable to rank-and-file conservatives in 2008.

The current argument being fronted by Perry and Paul is different in three important respects. First, public opinion among Republican voters over what to do right now in Iraq is notably divided, with (according to an ABC/Washington Post poll last month), 60 percent opposing the deployment of ground troops that the Cheneys are promoting and 38 percent opposing the air strikes Perry favors.

more
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/why-the-fight-between-rick-perry-and-rand-paul-actually-matters

[2banon]

1. nah.. TPM is making too much of it..

The Rapeuglicans have it under control. sure, there's a bit of a fissure there, but ultimately it's a distinction without much of a difference in terms of the existing electoral system regarding election outcomes. Once this rigged system is dismantled, replaced by a system that actually represents VOTERS, then TPM can wax poetic about these splits in the party, meaningfully.

[DonViejo]

4. The opinion of one TPM author does not necessarily reflect the opinion...

of TPM any more than the opinion of David Brooks reflects the opinion of the NYT or E.J. Dionne's opinions of the Washington Post.

[Gothmog]

2. I doubt that either Perry or Paul will be the GOP nominee

Paul is still hated along with his daddy by the GOP donor class and Perry is an idiot and even the GOP is not stupid enough to let Perry get near a debate with Hillary Clinton

[DFW]

3. It matter very little unless and until one thing happens

When some Republican comes out and says he or she represents the "Republican Wing of the Republican Party," to paraphrase Howard Dean, then there are only minor shades of the one version we are getting now. That version is the one that plays up to religious nuts, obeys all edicts coming down from big money, and is against all rights of the individual, whether to vote or to a fair trial or to decide whether or not to get pregnant. After all, corporations are people. People are not.

I see all "divisions" at this point as purely cosmetic. I also agree that neither our illustrious buffoon of a governor nor Rand Paul is a serious prospect for the Republican nomination. But you never know. Who thought Ronald Reagan was a serious contender for their nomination in 1978?

[2banon]

5. I remember laughing out loud hard when rumors had the notion that Reagan was going to toss his hat

in the ring. I thought the country wasn't that stupid, but my in-laws loved him which I didn't know until that moment. as you say, you never know. this country was that stupid and still is.

[echochamberlain]

6. Rand Paul as a candidate

The idea of Rand Paul as president is explored in this piece: http://sheppardpost.com/the-rand-paul-presidency/ ostensibly a wistful hypothetical, the piece, in reality, delves deeper into the relevance of the presidency itself.